Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Produce Pay, Inc. v. Producers International, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 14, 2018

PRODUCE PAY, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
PRODUCERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a PRODUCERS FRUIT AND VEGETABLE; EDUARDO REYES, Defendants.

          AMANDA C. YEN (NSBN 9726) AMANDA M. PERACH (NSBN 12399) McDONALD CARANO LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Produce Pay, Inc.

          DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS PRODUCERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. D/B/A PRODUCERS FRUIT AND VEGETABLE AND EDUARDO REYES

          JAMES C.MAHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Upon consideration of plaintiff, Produce Pay, Inc.'s (“Plaintiff”) Application for Entry of Default Judgment Against defendants Producers International, Inc. D/B/A Producers Fruit and Vegetable (the “Company”) and Eduardo Reyes (the “Principal” and collectively, the “Defendants”) [ECF No. 17] (the “Application”), all supporting documents, pleadings and arguments of counsel, and after Plaintiff having presented proof concerning damages and costs in this action, the Court HEREBY FINDS THAT:

         1. Company was engaged in the business of purchasing or selling produce in wholesale or jobbing quantities, and, therefore, is considered a “dealer” of perishable agricultural commodities as defined by the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a, et seq. (“PACA”).

         2. Company was engaged in the business of purchasing or selling produce in wholesale or jobbing quantities, and, therefore, is considered a “broker” of perishable agricultural commodities as defined by PACA.

         3. Company operated its business under a valid PACA license issued by the United States Department of Agriculture.

         4. In May 2016, Plaintiff and Harbest Produce, LLC (“Harbest”) entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiff would consign produce to Harbest for sale to third-party purchasers on Plaintiff's behalf.

         5. During May, June, and July of 2016, Plaintiff and the Company entered into contracts under which Plaintiff agreed to consign produce to Harbest for sale to the Company, and the Company agreed to purchase the produce from Plaintiff, identified in the chart and unpaid invoices attached as Exhibit 1 to the Complaint.

         6. By this arrangement, Plaintiff consigned to Harbest and sold to the Defendants, and the Defendants purchased from Plaintiff, produce having an invoice value in the present aggregate amount of $374, 938.00.

         7. Plaintiff, through its consignee Harbest, caused each load of produce to be delivered to the Defendants. The Defendants accepted each load of produce from Plaintiff, and the produce delivered conformed to the parties' contracts. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for any of the produce delivered as required by such contracts.

         8. Invoice nos. 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 123, 124, 125, and 114, identified in the chart attached as Exhibit 1 to the Complaint are subject to the PACA Trust.

         9. Plaintiff utilized each of the PACA invoices to perfect and otherwise preserve its PACA trust rights in and to each load of produce represented by those invoices.

         10. Plaintiff is an unpaid supplier or seller of produce having sold produce to the Defendants during 2016 for which it remains unpaid.

         11. The Defendants failed to pay or otherwise deliver good funds to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.